(en) anarkismo.net: ZACF Reply to the Misrepresentation of the ZACF by American Journalists and on the Schmidt Affair - I. (1/2) executive summary

Date
Mon, 22 Feb 2016 11:43:57 +0200

The following is the official statement of the Zabalaza Anarchist Communist Front (ZACF)
of South Africa on the controversy that erupted around Michael Schmidt, a South African
activist, several months ago. It follows a careful collective discussion process and
research and comes several weeks after the last installment in a series of articles
claiming to be an expose of Schmidt. As we are also committed to a number of ongoing
workshops, activities and publications, our time was limited. It has two main aims: to
outline our position on the claims made for, and against, Schmidt, and to respond to a
number of false statements that have been made about the ZACF in the course of the
developing Schmidt affair.

The statement opens with an executive summary, followed by a much more extensive discussion.

The statement was collectively crafted and issued by the ZACF: www.zabalaza.net

Questions and requests for comment should be addressed to zacf@riseup.net with a
clearly-identifiable subject line (Please note that we will not be responding to
questions, queries or claims from people using pseudonyms or otherwise concealing their
identities. Organisational affiliation, if any, should please be stated).

* Please note that a much earlier draft seems to have leaked online, labelled
“Consolidated ZACF statement v18.docx” at 84kb, dated 22 December 2015. Our documents go
through a process of collective writing and criticism and fact-checking, so THIS version
(the one you are reading now) is the correct one, with significant changes from earlier
versions. All previous drafts are made null-and-void by this final version and have no
standing whatsoever, and we will not enter into discussion of such drafts.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (DETAILED ANALYSIS FOLLOWS):

1. The Zabalaza Anarchist Communist Front (ZACF, or “Zabalaza”) is a small anarchist /
syndicalist organisation in South Africa, dating back to 2003. It has a long history of
militant work and publication, a majority black and working class composition, and
connections in neighbouring countries. It was formed on May Day 2003 by independent
collectives involved in student and township struggles and in the “new social movements”
of the time. In line with its founding documents, the ZACF Constitution and Position
Papers, the ZACF opposes all forms of oppression, including racial domination, national
oppression, imperialism, the oppression of women and immigrants, and capitalism and the
state (http://zabalaza.net/organise/theoretical-positions-of-the-zacf/).
2. We stand for the complete national and class emancipation of the black working class in
South Africa through revolutionary struggle, and have a long track record as an
organisation that’s political work and social base lie primarily with the black working
class and its organisations (see e.g. www.zabalaza.net and www.saasha.net and
www.facebook/zabalazanews). The anarchist and syndicalist movement in South Africa is very
small, and the ZACF is a substantial and important part of this movement, not a minority
strand.

3. In this statement the Zabalaza Anarchist Communist Front (ZACF) discusses the
controversy that has surrounded accusations against former ZACF member Michael Schmidt, by
the American journalists Alexander Reid Ross and Joshua Stephens and the America-based
publisher AK Press. Schmidt left active work in ZACF in early 2009, and resigned in early
2010. The allegations are that Schmidt was, from at least 2002 to the present, a fascist
and racist cadre infiltrating the anarchists – including ZACF. Schmidt argues that he has
been misrepresented, that his track record and the evidence are at odds with the claims,
and that fake right-wing statements he made as an undercover journalist investigating the
white radical right have been misrepresented as his real views. Schmidt’s accusers claim
these statements reflect his real views, and are part of a larger pattern of ongoing
right-wing thought and action.

4. This is the second ZACF statement on the Schmidt affair, in the sense that ZACF was
party to a statement issued by the global Anarkismo network on 29 September 2015, which
currently comprises over a dozen revolutionary anarchist groups on five continents, most,
historically, from the Global South. This statement did not take sides, but called instead
for a careful evaluation of the case, the release of all evidence, and on AK Press to
state that the accusations applied to Schmidt alone (not to everyone with whom he had been
associated ( www.anarkismo.net/article/28576). This statement was not acknowledged by Reid
Ross and Stephens, or AK Press. The gravity of the allegations does not justify a lack of
fair process.

5. ZACF completely distances itself from any and all racist and fascist and white
supremacist positions, and condemns them in the strongest possible terms.

6. ZACF completely distances itself from any offensive statements that Schmidt has made,
regardless of the rationale for such statements. We are disgusted by what we have read,
and by the number of these statements, and note that these statements are indeed deeply
racist and sometimes fascist. The “manifesto” and blog posts attributed to Schmidt on the
right wing website Stormfront and on his blog at strandwolf.blogspot.com (linked to a
group he now admits to setting up named Black Battlefront) are horrifying. It is very
difficult for us to reconcile these awful blog posts (and those of several related online
personas) with our experiences of Michael Schmidt as an active and dedicated member of our
organisation.

7. ZACF views the accusations against Schmidt with the utmost gravity. If the accusations
are proven true, ZACF will denounce Schmidt and take all appropriate steps. If proven, the
accusations would indicate activities and views completely at odds with the positions and
practice and social composition of the ZACF, at odds with the class-struggle, anti-racist
and anti-oppression anarchist and syndicalist traditions that ZACF champions, as well as
manifest dishonesty on Schmidt’s part. And the ZACF would have been the primary victim of
Schmidt’s activities. Schmidt, if guilty, must bear the consequences of his actions.

8. ZACF also wishes to put on record that Schmidt has not been a member or participant in
ZACF for over five years, has played no role in the development of this statement, or in
any proposals and points that this statement makes, and has not been shown drafts or asked
for comment, and also that ZACF has not been lobbied by Schmidt – or anyone else – to make
any particular statements on the Schmidt affair, 2015-2016.

9. It is our position that the Schmidt affair cannot be resolved through another round of
online articles, social media debates or statements. Not only have the online debates
become unproductive and polarised (see point 27) but so much information and analysis has
been produced that it is very difficult for individuals and organisations to methodically
process and evaluate all arguments made by both sides.

10. In terms of evaluating the charges against Schmidt, ZACF instead supports the 30
January 2016 Anarkismo proposal for an inclusive and international anarchist and
syndicalist commission of inquiry, to examine the allegations against Schmidt, as well as
Schmidt’s replies to the allegations, with accusers and accused and sources available to
answer questions and provide materials to the commission. The proposal does not envisage
an Anarkismo-controlled process. Nor would Reid Ross and Stephens, AK Press or Schmidt,
decide on its composition. See http://anarkismo.net/article/29047

11. We believe there are real problems with some of the statements made by both the
accusers of Schmidt against Schmidt himself, as well as in Schmidt’s responses to these
accusations. These may be open to innocent explanations: we keep an open mind. The ZACF
will make a formal submission to the proposed commission, and be available for questions
and to provide additional materials to that commission. We have extensive archives and
records, which back up our claims, for example, about ZACF history (see below).

12. ZACF will also consider itself guided by the findings and recommendations of the
proposed commission. The ZACF will address all the allegations against Schmidt himself, as
well as his defence, in a separate statement at the conclusion of the commission's
investigations.

13. ZACF wishes to place on record that when similar accusations were levelled against
Schmidt from 2011 onwards, we confronted and checked on Schmidt several times. He has
always maintained the same basic defence as that he has presented in 2015. Given the
evidence we had to hand, and given Schmidt’s record and status as a long-standing comrade,
we felt that we had no real choice but to give him the benefit of the doubt. Historically
we have critically accepted Schmidt’s explanation for what we felt was the lack of an
alternative, but we recognise that an extensive case has now been made against Schmidt,
and new evidence brought to bear. This new material and debate merits careful reflection
and evaluation, but must be weighed up carefully against his own counter-case – honestly
and fairly.

14. ZACF expresses its disappointment with Schmidt’s now-admitted non-disclosure of
aspects of his claimed underground journalistic work to the ZACF, both during his tenure
in the ZACF and when it previously spoke to him from 2011 onwards. ZACF is highly
disappointed by Schmidt’s now-admitted failure to inform ZACF that he knew the identity of
a National Intelligence Agency (NIA) spy moving in left circles.

15. We do not, in this statement, therefore discuss whether Schmidt is indeed guilty of
all the charges that have been made against him by AK Press, and Reid Ross and Stephens.
This statement is not a point-by-point discussion of evidence around Schmidt, and should
not be misconstrued as such. It is detailed, not to bury issues in words, but because
serious allegations need a serious reply.

16. ZACF rejects the version of ZACF history and politics contained within Reid Ross and
Stephens’ articles. We realise well enough that ZACF was not the focus of the articles,
and take it in good faith that we entered the conversation only by way of association, but
we have to respond to what constitutes (even if unintentionally) a series of very serious,
very damaging (and, as we show, false) allegations about our organisation. They were not
irrelevant to it, or trivialities that can be ignored on the grounds that the focus was on
Schmidt.

17. ZACF specifically rejects the following central claims put foward by Reid Ross and
Stephens: that the ZACF considered a proposal for racial segregation in 2003 (untrue),
that Schmidt successfully engineered the expulsion of black and township ZACF members in
2005 to whittle ZACF into a white group (untrue), that ZACF's organisational culture was
deeply shaped by an allegedly racist and fascist Schmidt (untrue), that ZACF ignored
evidence that Schmidt was involved with the radical right (untrue), that other ZACF
members shared Schmidt’s alleged right-wing opinions (untrue), that ZACF opposed feminism
(untrue), that a ZACF social centre and garden in Soweto was run on racist lines (untrue),
and they speak of a “Schmidt-era” of ZACF lasting into 2009 (untrue). ZACF also rejects
Reid Ross and Stephens’ claims about the “national” character of ZACF, claims about the
2007 ZACF congress, claims about ZACF financial practices, claims about ZACF
organisational culture and standards, and claims that ZACF ignored a problematic document
that Schmidt issued internally in 2008 called “Politico-Cultural Dynamics of the South
African Anarchist Movement” (ZACF discussed and rejected the document, and Schmidt also
formally repudiated it that year).

18. There is no evidence whatsoever that ZACF was subverted, before, during or after 2008
by any fascist or racist or radical white right agenda, by anyone whatsoever. We are not
concerned here with the separate issue of what Schmidt might have done elsewhere, covertly
or otherwise in this period, we are stating that ZACF was never influenced by these
politics – and that Schmidt never openly pursued any such politics while in ZACF. Contrary
to the impression given by Reid Ross and Stephens, ZACF has always strived to act
decisively and in line with its revolutionary principles and approach. There was no
transition from a so-called right-wing “Schmidt-era” of ZACF, to a new, transformed ZACF
later: ZACF theory and perspectives never changed, and the black working class orientation
of ZACF never changed.

19. This criticism of the articles is not a matter of “shooting-the-messenger,” but of
demonstrating that the message (as regards ZACF) is wrong. It is essential to our honour
as revolutionaries to challenge, on the basis of facts, the profoundly inaccurate Reid
Ross and Stephens’ version of ZACF history and politics, to clarifying the record of the
ZACF, this including Schmidt’s role in ZACF, and ZACF’s relations to Schmidt, when he was
a member, and subsequently.

20. Reid Ross and Stephens’ inaccurate representation of ZACF is based on poor research
and analysis, and serious factual and analytical problems, regarding not just ZACF but
South Africa generally. Eurocentrism and an uncritical embrace by the two journalists of
deeply problematic anti-left arguments associated with the South African state and
ultra-nationalists, but rooted in the colonial geography of reason, are part of the problem.

21. No use was made of easily available ZACF source materials and archives, and the two
journalists have failed to contact ZACF throughout the series to check facts or to provide
right-of-reply to charges made. Their account of ZACF is almost entirely based on the
views of one former member active for a relatively short period, outsider opinions,
dubious inferences from an inaccurate document by Schmidt that was rejected by ZACF, and
unsubstantiated and often demonstrably false assertions. The history of ZACF cannot be
based on so few sources, especially given that claims made by these sources contradict a
larger body of other evidence that has been ignored.

22. Silencing black and African voices, and the ZACF, has been central to the articles’
methodology. ZACF sources were ignored. Contradictory data and testimony was ignored. In
particular this relates to one ZACF ex-member and founder member, comrade Mzamani Philip
Nyalungu, who was made central to one article (in fact he is the only person we feel was
insulted by name, besides Schmidt, in their seven articles.) His testimony, at odds with
key claims by the journalists, was not cited, yet the testimony of two white ex-ZACF
members was repeatedly presented as self-evidently true. This can be construed as racist:
while Reid Ross and Stephens may argue that they have grounds to criticise Schmidt
harshly, there is no justification for this treatment of a serious black working class
militant.

23. Claims that we are unduly emotional about what we feel is an unjustifiable
misrepresentation of the ZACF, that trivialise this misrepresentation, or that present
ZACF as ill-informed or ill-motivated, reflect the same colonial and silencing outlook.

24. There was a double-standard throughout the discussion of ZACF, which placed ZACF in a
subordinate position, and had racial overtones. Reid Ross and Stephens stated that they
concealed the names of the sources cited to ensure their personal security. Yet they
provided the name and residential information of a prominent, township-based, black
working class ex-ZACF member, while diligently concealing the details of a white middle
class ex-ZACF member, no longer even resident in South Africa. No account was taken of the
often violently intolerant contexts in which ZACF operates, and how the claims made in the
articles against ZACF place it and its members at risk. If Schmidt was a fascist, racist
infiltrator who was allegedly sufficiently dangerous to require that sources be kept
concealed for safety, as the journalists insisted, then their immediate responsibility was
actually to inform ZACF of a potentially deadly security threat. This would have allowed
us to take immediate steps for the security of our black working class base. This never
happened.

25. The same double standard was evident in the contrasting treatment of AK Press and
ZACF. ZACF believes it completely unacceptable that Reid Ross and Stephens informed AK
Press of their investigations into Schmidt and pending articles, allowing it to avoid
reputational damage with a pre-emptive public statement – yet did not contact ZACF in a
similar manner.

26. The development of the Schmidt affair raises questions about the future of the
anarchist movement in the Global South and elsewhere. Certainly if Schmidt is guilty there
are grounds for serious concern, but we have in mind here other issues that are just as
important. The absence of a proper right-of-reply prior to publication, for both ZACF and
Schmidt, the neglect for the safety and wellbeing of a black ZACF founder member, the
hostile and personalised tone of many claims in the articles, the trial-by-media that has
taken place, and the serious inaccuracies in the story around the ZACF, are some of the
problems.

27. The ZACF also expresses its serious concern about the venomous and polarised tone that
online debates on the Schmidt affair have assumed. A vocal anti-Schmidt current dominates
many forums by relying, not on substantive debate, but on innuendos and on labelling, with
any disagreement with any part of Reid Ross and Stephens’ / AK Press’ claims treated as
the work of fascists, racists, tools of Schmidt etc. In this climate, those with contrary
views soon withdraw, rational debate is closed, and more nuanced views that do not fit a
neat pro-/ anti-Schmidt position, are lost. This is not a constructive approach to any
debate, regardless of the severity of the accusations.

28. A sectarian current has also used the Schmidt affair to attack the ZACF, Anarkismo,
and the whole anarcho-syndicalist, revolutionary syndicalist and anarchist-communist
mainstream of anarchism. The simple fact of the matter is that, if Schmidt is indeed
guilty, he would have betrayed the basic principles of class-struggle anarchism, the ZACF
he helped found, the anarchists he has worked with as a militant and as a writer, and the
movement generally. Therefore it is false to assume that if Schmidt is guilty, that his
views represent, or arise from, class-struggle or Platformist/especifista anarchist
traditions.

29. We are appalled that the worst public caricature that has ever been made of the ZACF
comes, not from the state, not from capital, not from other left groups, but from people
who claim to be anarchists. This is not a sign of a healthy movement.

30. ZACF believes there are also serious North/ South power dynamics at play in the affair
that need attention. Precisely because countries like the USA dominate media, knowledge
production and publication globally, even obscure writers in the Global North have a
louder voice than almost any in the Global South. This is the context that allows the tiny
collective running the America-based publishing house AK Press, and two minor (although
doubtless well-intentioned and sincere – we are not debating their personalities) American
journalists, Reid Ross and Stephens, to propagate their views on a global scale. ZACF
simply has no commensurate power, this being directly linked to its African basis.

31. This North/ South situation allows the views of ZACF and Anarkismo, representing far
more people and countries than one American publishing cooperative and two American
journalists, to be completely marginalised, power reinforcing the process of silencing the
African and black and ZACF voices that we have mentioned. It allows AK Press to
effectively ban from publication “Black Flame: The Revolutionary Class Politics of
Anarchism and Syndicalism,” which was primarily authored by one-time ZACF member, comrade
Lucien van der Walt, almost a decade ago, as part of a larger project with Schmidt. It
allows Anarkismo’s efforts to democratise the AK Press space by taking responsibility,
qualifying its claims, and carrying different views on the story, to be ignored. It allows
Reid Ross and Stephens to say what they wish about ZACF from behind the secure walls of
the dollar and the American legal system. And it allows the unedifying spectacle of two
white Americans doling out advice on racial politics and “the deleterious effects of
institutionalized power disparities” to African and black anarchist revolutionaries.

32. We reject the AK Press collective’s attempts to deny responsibility in this affair. By
their own admission, they worked with Reid Ross and Stephens to investigate Schmidt, and
collaborated with them in compiling evidence; and they have provided the main platform for
the mass dissemination of Reid Ross and Stephens’ seven articles. They are as responsible
as Reid Ross and Stephens for what the ZACF has endured.

33. All of this is far from the prefigurative, solidaristic and internationalist movement
we would like to see change the world. To avoid similar situations in future, we advocate
a code of conduct for anarchist or anarchist-identified writers and journalists, that
measures be put in place to keep small collectives controlling massive resources –
including publishers like AK Press – accountable to the movements they claim to serve, the
development of a more inclusive anarchist press, in which voices from working class and
peasant movements, from ghettoes, from townships, from labour movements, from the
oppressed nationalities and classes, and from the Global South as well as the Global
North, are central.

34. ZACF also believes that substantial sectors of the self-identified anarchist movement
need to have some serious introspection about the political culture of venom,
sectarianism, and McCarthyite-style paranoia, obsessed with ultra-fringe forces like
“national-anarchism,” exposed in the Schmidt affair. This that often substitutes for, and
certainly hinders, building a mass, sustained, organised anarchism and syndicalism rooted
in the popular classes, in labour movements, in oppressed nationalities, and in actual
revolutionary struggles. Approaches like those proposed by Anarkismo and ZACF – a cautious
approach to serious allegations, the use of a commission – can play an important role in
this process.

35. We do not object to debate, or to criticism or self-reflection. Nor do we object to
the anarchist and syndicalist movement having open and frank discussions. We do not call
for a unity based on ignoring differences or on silence. We welcome open and honest debate
as an essential part of an effective political practice. But what we do object to are
debates based on sectarianism, personal attacks, innuendos, labelling, and bullying, and a
lack of sensitivity to power dynamics.

36. We wish to stress that we have no personal issues with either Reid Ross or Stephens,
neither of whom we know. We have no objections to critique. And we note Reid Ross emailed
us on 27 December 2015 to state, “You have only my deepest respect for carrying on your
incredible work” and stated he was “deeply sorry” if the articles created problems for
ZACF. He also stated, “It was always my intention to remove both your collective and
Lucien [van der Walt] from the investigation in such a way that would prevent a kind of
‘witch hunt’ effect.” We appreciate this effort to reach out to us, and the sentiment
contained in these statements.

37. But the fact remains that the articles have, whether intentional or not, promoted
falsehoods about ZACF, created serious problems for ZACF, silenced and even lectured ZACF.
Neither AK Press, nor Stephens, nor Reid Ross have admitted this publicly; AK Press
cancelled “Black Flame,” of which comrade van der Walt was primary author, Reid Ross and
Stephens slated that book in their articles and by implication comrade van der Walt, and
the articles presented ZACF as fundamentally subverted by a fascist and racist agenda.
This obviously creates problems for ZACF.

38. Although “Black Flame” has, like any book, various flaws, and is not a ZACF
publication, we insist that it is a revolutionary anarchist classic that remains of
enduring value. It is a non-Eurocentric South-centred text that, for the first time,
places people of colour, the Global South and struggles against imperialism and racism at
the very centre of the history, canon and movements of historic anarchism and syndicalism.
Reid Ross and Stephens themselves concede the book asserts the “primacy of class struggle
and workers’ movements” in a global anarchist struggle – and this is not a rightist or a
nationalist position.

39. We therefore urge both Reid Ross and Stephens, as well as members of the AK Press
collective, not to fire off a hasty response to what we have written, but to consider
seriously and respectfully the problems they have created for ZACF, one of the main
anarchist organisations in Africa. And to admit there is fault, and that there are errors
in the articles and the process that created them. We have no personal issues with any of
these parties: we are raising issues of principle and process that deserve due
consideration and a respectful conversation. We urge them to avoid statements that
trivialize what has been done to ZACF, and how it has been done, or that evade
responsibility by suggesting our responses are unduly emotional or ignorant.

40. If they are deeply sorry for the problems they created, as Reid Ross stated in his
e-mail to the ZACF, they should issue a public apology to ZACF and to comrades Nyalungu
and van der Walt (approved by ZACF in advance), for the misrepresentations that have been
made, and also make a clear public statement (approved by ZACF in advance) explicitly
stating that the allegations that they have made against Schmidt refer to Schmidt alone,
and not to any publishers, co-authors, editors, left organisations or currents with which
he may have been associated. (To his credit, Reid Ross has suggested that he is amiable to
the idea of such a statement although we note that it has not, so far, appeared. We note
with appreciation a statement by Reid Ross published on 17 February (
http://alexanderreidross.com/ideological-influence-and-the-schmidt-affair/ [10]) in which
he states that “some have implicated the wrong people, groups, or sets of ideas”, but do
not feel this goes far enough in addressing our concerns and ameliorating the damage done
to the political work, dignity and reputation of the ZACF, comrades Nyalungu and van der
Walt or "Black Flame".)